Subject: Posting of OIG Report-Impact of State Employee Furloughs on the Social
Security Administration's Disability Programs (A-01-09-29137) to Recovery.Gov
Website

This is to inform you that our March 2009 report, Impact of State Employee
Furloughs on the Social Security Disability Programs (A-01-09-29137) is posted
to the Recovery.gov website.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) received $500 million in Recovery
Act funds to address retirement and disability workloads. Also, SSA fully funds
the salaries and other costs of certain state employees who perform critical
work in SSA's disability programs. However, because of the recent economic downturn,
several states have furloughed employees-including disability determination
staff.

Although our report does not specifically mention the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, it provides critical information on how furloughs
of state disability determination employees will impact SSA's ability to process
disability work. The report also notes that because fewer disability decisions
will be made in states that have furloughed disability determination staff,
there will be a negative impact on the flow of money in the U.S. economy. As
such, the report informs Congress and the American public on the effects of
the current economic downturn on SSA's disability program as a result of State
budget deficits. Further, the report explains that SSA fully funds State Disability
Determinations Services (DDS) and that furloughs of DDS employees will impact
SSA's ability to process the disability workload. Therefore, we had the report
posted to the recovery.gov website.

If there are any issues that you would like to discuss with respect to this
report, please call me or have your staff contact Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant
Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700.

The attached final quick response evaluation presents the results of our review.
Our objective was to assess the impact of State employee furloughs on the Social
Security Administration's disability programs.

If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff
contact Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410)
965-9700.

Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr.

QUICK RESPONSE
EVALUATION

Impact
of State Employee Furloughs on the Social Security Administration's Disability
Programs

A-01-09-29137

March
2009

Mission

By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations,
we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA's programs
and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely,
useful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress
and the public.

Authority

The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,
called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled
out in the Act, is to:

Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations
relating to agency programs and operations.
Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.
Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.
Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation
and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.
Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems
in agency programs and operations.

To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:

Independence to determine what reviews to perform.
Access to all information necessary for the reviews.
Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.

Vision

We strive for continual improvement in SSA's programs, operations and management
by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment that provides
a valuable public service while encouraging employee development and retention
and fostering diversity and innovation.

Background
OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the impact of State employee furloughs on the Social
Security Administration's (SSA) disability programs.

BACKGROUND

SSA provides Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefit payments to eligible individuals under Titles II and XVI of the Social
Security Act. To receive either, an individual must file an application with
SSA. Once an application is filed, an SSA field office determines whether the
individual meets the non-disability criteria for benefits, and if so, generally
forwards the claim to the disability determination services (DDS) in the State
or other responsible jurisdiction in accordance with the Social Security Act
and Federal regulations for a disability determination. DDSs are in each of
the 50 States plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

SSA reimburses the DDS for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to its
approved funding authorization. The expenditures include both costs directly
related to claims processing (such as disability adjudicators' salaries) and
indirect costs. (See Appendix C for additional information about DDS funding.)

To deal with budget deficits, some States have instituted, or are considering,
furloughs for State employees-including staff at the DDSs, which are 100 percent
funded by SSA. However, Federal regulations state:

Subject to appropriate Federal funding, the State will, to the best of its
ability, facilitate the processing of disability claims by avoiding personnel
freezes, restrictions against overtime work, or curtailment of facilities or
activities.

Additionally, on February 3, 2009, California began delaying payments to individuals
who provide consultative examinations and medical records. California also notified
SSA that there would be a 30-day delay in payment (which was due to SSA by February
26, 2009) of the estimated amount of its March 2009 federally administered State
supplement to SSI recipients.

To perform this review, we gathered and reviewed data related to workloads
in FYs 2008 and 2009; interviewed SSA officials to obtain information on SSA's
disability programs; sent a survey to all DDS Administrators to determine the
status of furloughs and hiring freezes; and calculated the dollar impact of
furloughs in California. (See Appendix B for additional information about our
scope and methodology.)

The results presented in this report are a snapshot of what was happening in
States during late February and early March 2009. Because of the current economic
crisis nationwide, other States may impose furloughs and/or hiring freezes and
may continue to do so until their State economies improve.

Results of Review
Furloughs of DDS employees will impact SSA's ability to process the disability
workload. Additionally, because fewer disability decisions will be made in States
with DDS furloughs, as well as other State budget issues affecting DDS operations,
there will be a negative impact on the flow of money in the U.S. economy.

FURLOUGHS

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, SSA spent $1.8 billion funding DDS operations for
almost 14,000 DDS employees who processed about 3.6 million disability claims
nationwide. (See Appendix D for a breakout by DDS.) Further, SSA plans to spend
about $2 billion in FY 2009 on DDS operations and expects the DDSs to process
almost 4 million claims. However, SSA's ability to process this workload will
be negatively impacted by furloughs. As of March 3, 2009, of the 52 DDSs,
5 were furloughing,
3 were considering furloughs, and
44 were not furloughing or the DDS was exempt.

Of the five States furloughing:
California is furloughing all DDS staff 2 days each month through June 2010.
Connecticut had one voluntary furlough day for managers on February 13, 2009.
Since then, the Governor has extended the request for voluntary furloughs to
all State employees through June 1, 2009.

Maryland is furloughing 2 unpaid holidays for all State employees and additional
furlough days for State employees within certain salary ranges through June
2009.
Massachusetts is furloughing DDS managers 3 days through June 2009.
Oregon is furloughing DDS managers from 1 to 4 days, depending on salary range,
through June 2009.

These five States represent over 15 percent of the national DDS workload each
year. See the map below and Appendix E for details of the furlough status for
the 52 DDSs.

In FY 2008:
SSA issued over $142 billion in DI and SSI payments to more than 14 million
individuals. The majority of these beneficiaries and recipients were found disabled
by the DDSs.
The DDSs handled more than 3.6 million claims. The DDSs allowed 36.0 percent
of claims at the initial level and 13.8 percent of claims at the reconsideration
level of appeal.
DDSs processed initial DI and SSI claims in 81 days, on average.

In FY 2009 (through February 2009), DDS initial claims receipts have increased
almost 10 percent over the same period last year. Nationwide, SSA expects applications
for benefits to increase 12 percent by year-end. (See Tables D-3 and D-4 in
Appendix D for statistics and costs by DDS.)

Furloughs will impact the number of disability determinations the DDS will
make in FY 2009, including the number of claims allowed. For example, the California
DDS will encounter a shortfall of capacity by 10 percent due to furlough days.
As a result, we expect approximately 2,375 disability cases would be delayed
in processing per month. This would translate into about 776 allowances. Therefore,
we estimate that about $648,000 in benefits will be delayed in being paid to
newly disabled claimants and from flowing into the economy on a rolling monthly
basis. (See Appendix F for more details.)

Further, since January 1, 2009, the California DDS' initial claims pending
has increased 9.7 percent, and its reconsideration claims pending has increased
16.1 percent, as a result of increased applications and the furloughs. Therefore,
claimants will have to wait longer for disability decisions.

Continuing Disability Reviews

SSA conducts periodic continuing disability reviews (CDR) to ensure that only
those beneficiaries who remain disabled continue to receive benefits. Most CDR
cases that are profiled as having a high likelihood of medical improvement are
sent to the DDS for a full medical review. The DDS is also responsible for processing
all CDRs for SSI disabled children and in all cases where there has been a report
of medical improvement.

In FY 2007, DDS employees processed 189,955 medical CDRs and ceased benefits
in 52,490 cases. SSA estimates that for FY 2007, the ratio of program savings
to administrative costs was approximately $12 to $1. However, furloughs will
have a direct impact on processing these CDRs-resulting in ongoing DI benefits
and SSI payments to individuals who would no longer be eligible based on the
CDR.

Compassionate Allowances

SSA implemented its Compassionate Allowance (CAL) initiative in October 2008-designed
to quickly identify those cases where the claimant's medical condition invariably
qualifies under the Listing of Impairments based on minimal, but sufficient,
objective medical evidence.

Cases selected for CAL processing receive priority at all adjudicative levels
and are handled by the most experienced disability examiners. Furloughs of DDS
employees will negatively affect CAL claims by delaying the processing of these
claims.

Informal Remand Processing

When a claim for disability benefits is denied, the claimant can appeal the
determination. As part of the appeal, the hearing office can return a claim
to the DDS for review of the previous determination, in what is sometimes called
an informal remand (IR). The DDS then conducts a pre-hearing case review. Cases
selected for IR are initial claims in which there is a strong likelihood that
the DDS will revise its determination to be wholly or partially favorable to
the claimant.

A special DDS IR initiative began in June 2007 to assist in reducing the backlog
of appealed cases. According to SSA, the results have been positive and exceeded
expectations. In FY 2008, DDSs processed over 52,000 IRs. In FY 2009, DDSs have
processed over 15,000 IRs and revised the determinations in about 4,500 of these
claims (through January 30, 2009). The IR initiative has been extended through
FY 2009.

As a result of furloughs, the California DDS may not be able to continue processing
IRs. This would have a negative impact on SSA's plan to reduce its backlog of
cases waiting for a hearing, as well as delaying payment to some deserving individuals.

OTHER ISSUES IMPACTING DDS PROCESSING

In addition to furloughs, other issues, such as hiring freezes, attrition rates,
and State budget shortfalls, will impact the DDSs' ability to process workloads.

Hiring Freezes

Of the 52 DDSs,
5 had hiring freezes,
1 was considering a hiring freeze, and
46 did not have hiring freezes or the DDS is exempt.

For example, the Indiana DDS reported that it had a hiring freeze. The State
had deactivated positions in the DDS that could not be filled. The deactivations
affected approximately 30 disability examiner positions, and several other positions
including supervisory and professional positions, the Senior Medical Doctor,
and quality assurance positions. In FY 2009, Indiana's initial claims pending
has increased 4.4 percent. (See Appendix E for status of hiring freezes by DDSs.)

Attrition Rate

The attrition rate for DDS disability examiners was 12.5 percent in FY 2008
and 9.8 percent in FY 2009 (as of February 2009). (See Table D-5 in Appendix
D for attrition rates by DDS.) In a 2004 report, we found that lower-performing
DDSs had higher rates of disability examiner attrition and fewer examiners in
relationship to total staff than their higher-performing DDS counterparts. These
issues may become more of an obstacle to SSA processing disability workloads
if furloughs continue.

California Budget Issues

Because of budget shortfalls, in February 2009, California began delaying payments
to preserve cash flow and prioritize those payments required by the State constitution,
Federal law, or court rulings. DDS operations have been affected by these delayed
payments because the State has stopped paying for the evidence the DDS needs
to make disability determinations-even though SSA reimburses the DDS for these
expenditures up to its approved funding authorization. If the California DDS
does not obtain existing medical evidence or purchase medical examinations that
it needs to make correct determinations, the quality of its disability determinations
could suffer.

SSA's EFFORTS TO ENSURE OPTIMAL DDS PROCESSING

SSA has been proactive in addressing the impact of furloughs. On February 3,
2009, the Commissioner of Social Security sent a letter to the Chair of the
National Governors Association, urging States to exempt their DDSs from hiring
restrictions and furloughs. In this letter, the Commissioner stated that SSA
funds 100 percent of DDS employees' salaries as well as overhead-about $2 billion
nationwide in FY 2009. States cannot use these funds for any other purpose,
so States do not save money by cutting employees in the DDSs-they only slow
getting benefits to the disabled. The Commissioner also pointed out that States
receive significant benefits from the operation of the DDSs. The faster SSA
approves claims for benefits, the sooner many disability applicants move from
State to Federal support. In addition, the salaries for DDS employees funded
by SSA reduce unemployment levels in the States.

Additionally,
The Commissioner of Social Security sent a letter to all State Governors to
educate them about the SSA Federal/State DDS relationship and reemphasize that
SSA pays for 100 percent of the costs to process SSA disability workloads.
Over the past 6 months, SSA Regional Commissioners have urged States to exempt
DDSs from hiring restrictions and furloughs.
SSA staff met with staff members from the House Ways and Means Subcommittee,
Subcommittee on Social Security regarding the impact of the furloughs and hiring
freezes on the disability program.
SSA's Associate Commissioner of Disability Determinations plans to speak at
a Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation conference regarding
the importance of exempting the DDSs from State-wide hiring restrictions and
furloughs.

Matters for Consideration
Furloughs and other DDS issues, such as hiring freezes, will impact SSA's disability
programs as well as the flow of money in the economy. The decision to furlough
DDS employees means the processing of disability workloads will be delayed.
Also, DDSs will not be able to respond to the growing demand for their services
if they are unable to hire sufficient staff or if existing staff are told not
to report for work.

Since SSA funds 100 percent of DDS employees' salaries as well as overhead,
and these funds cannot be used by the States for any other purpose, there is
no cost savings to the States who furlough DDS employees. Furloughs and other
budget issues-including hiring freezes-slow the processing of claims for disability
benefits and reduce the flow of those benefits into the economy. Therefore,
SSA should continue to urge States to ensure DDSs are operating at full capacity
or pursue other options to avoid these delays by shifting work away from States
that are implementing furloughs.

Work with States to exempt DDS employees from furloughs. Will eliminate all
impacts of State furloughs.
Work with furloughing States to allow DDS employees to work more hours on non-furlough
days. Will partially reduce the impact of furloughs-depending on number of hours
worked. Medical consultants/contractors do not traditionally work overtime so
there may be personnel restrictions about working additional hours.
Transfer work to Federal disability examiners (in Regions or in Headquarters).
Will partially reduce the impact of the furloughs- depending on the availability
of Federal disability examiners to take on additional work. Will not fully address
impact of the furloughs.
May reduce the Federal disability examiners' ability to help other DDSs.
Transfer of claims would involve administrative planning and resources.
Transfer work to other State DDSs that are not furloughing. Will partially reduce
the impact of the furloughs-depending on the availability of other DDSs to take
on additional work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs and may impact
other DDSs' ability to complete their own workloads.
Transfer of claims would involve administrative planning and resources.
Hire retired DDS and Disability Quality Branch (DQB) disability examiners as
rehired annuitants on contract (in Regions or Headquarters). Will partially
reduce the impact of the furloughs- depending on the availability of retired
examiners to perform work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs.
Will require refresher training and possible enhanced quality reviews of these
disability determinations.
Allow current SSA employees who used to work as disability examiners in DDS
or DQB to work disability claims on overtime (in Regions or Headquarters). Will
partially reduce the impact of the furloughs- depending on the availability
of former examiners to perform work. Will not fully address impact of the furloughs.
Will require refresher training and possible enhanced quality reviews of these
disability determinations.
Contract disability claims out to private companies. Will reduce the impact
of furloughs and allow for future flexibility in handling future DDS backlogs.
May require legislative and regulatory authority.
May not be cost effective and may require an assessment to determine if contracting
for these services is permissible.
Note: this work has been identified by SSA as 'inherently governmental activity'
and therefore exempt from competitive contracting.
Will require oversight of the contract(s) and possible enhanced quality reviews
of these disability determinations.
Take over State DDS Operations (Federalize the DDSs). Will eliminate all impacts
of State furloughs and give SSA complete control over its disability determinations.
SSA could achieve savings by maintaining one case processing and fiscal system
rather than supporting separate systems for each DDS. Would require legislative
and regulatory changes.
Will require significant administrative and planning resources.
Will impact SSA's costs for disability determinations. For example, Federal
salaries for disability examiners may be higher than some State salary rates.

Other Matter
California delayed paying its estimated share of the March 2009 federally administered
State supplement to SSI recipients (which was due to SSA by February 26, 2009)-approximately
$286 million paid monthly to almost 900,000 recipients-and administrative fees
estimated at $13 million. SSA issued these supplemental payments on behalf of
the State, but California is required to reimburse SSA for the State supplement
payments and fees in addition to interest charges accruing on the late payments.

Sent a survey to all DDS administrators to determine the status of furloughs
and hiring freezes.

Calculated dollar impact of furloughs in California.

We performed our review in February and March 2009 in Boston, Massachusetts.
We conducted our review in accordance with the President's Council on Integrity
and Efficiency's Quality Standards for Inspections.

Appendix C
Disability Determination Services Funding

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for implementing policies
for the development of disability claims under the Disability Insurance (DI)
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The DI program provides benefits
to wage earners and their families in the event of disability. The SSI program
provides benefits to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind or disabled.
Additionally, States have the option of supplementing their residents' SSI payments
and may choose to have the additional payments administered by SSA.

Disability determinations under both the DI and SSI programs are performed
by disability determination services (DDS) in each State or other responsible
jurisdiction in accordance with the Social Security Act and Federal regulations.
In carrying out its obligation, each DDS is responsible for determining claimants'
disabilities and ensuring adequate evidence is available to support its determinations.
To assist in making proper disability determinations, each DDS is authorized
to purchase medical examinations, X rays and laboratory tests on a consultative
basis to supplement evidence obtained from the claimants' physicians or other
treating sources.

SSA reimburses the DDS for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to its
approved funding authorization. The DDS withdraws Federal funds through the
Department of the Treasury's Automated Standard Application for Payment system
to pay for program expenditures. Funds drawn down must comply with Federal regulations
and intergovernmental agreements entered into by the Department of the Treasury
and States under the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. An advance or
reimbursement for costs under the program must comply with Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. At the end of each quarter of the Fiscal Year,
each DDS submits a Form SSA-4513, State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA
Disability Programs, to account for program disbursements and unliquidated obligations.

Appendix D
Disability Statistics by Jurisdiction

Table D-1 shows the number of all Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries and
their dependents as of December 2007, and the estimated total annual benefits
paid to those individuals.

Table E-1 shows the results of our survey of each disability determination
services (DDS) administrator to determine each DDS' furlough and hiring freeze
status as of March 3, 2009.

Table E-1: Status of Furlough/Hiring Freeze by DDS
DDS Furlough Status Hiring Freeze Status Remarks
Alabama No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Alaska No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Arizona Furlough but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Arkansas No furlough. No hiring freeze.
California Furlough in place. No hiring freeze. 2 days per month-started in
February 2009.
Colorado Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS
exempt. Possible furlough of DDS employees up to 2 days per month.
Connecticut Administrator took one voluntary furlough day. The governor extended
the request for voluntary furloughs to all state employees through June 1. Hiring
freeze but DDS exempt.
Delaware Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS
exempt.
District of Columbia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Florida No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Georgia Furlough but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Hawaii Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Idaho Furloughs but DDS exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Illinois No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Indiana No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS. Several positions "deactivated,"
including 30 disability examiners. These positions are temporarily eliminated
and would require "reactivation" to be filled again.
Iowa No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Kansas No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. "Soft" freeze-hiring
is restricted but occurs as warranted. DDS hired 75 percent of positions.
Kentucky No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Louisiana Considering furloughs, DDS status not decided. Hiring freeze but DDS
exempt. DDS hiring freeze but given a limited number of hires.
Maine No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
Maryland Furloughs in place. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. Furlough between
2 and 3 days depending on salary.
Massachusetts Furloughs in place. Considering a hiring freeze and DDS not likely
exempt. Furloughing 3 days for DDS managers. Most are going to work the days
and be compensated after retirement. They can also work without pay. Hiring
cap but DDS is in the process of getting the cap lifted for DDS disability examiner
positions.
Michigan No furlough. No hiring freeze. Furlough may be possible in 2010.
Minnesota No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Mississippi No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Missouri No furlough. Considering hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt.
Montana No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Nebraska No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Nevada Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
New Hampshire No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt.
New Jersey Considering furloughs, DDS status not decided. Hiring freeze for
DDS.
New Mexico No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
New York No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
North Carolina No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
North Dakota No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Ohio Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
DDS says it is under a hiring freeze, but it has received approvals to hire.
Oklahoma Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt Considering hiring freeze
but DDS likely exempt
Oregon Furlough in place. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt. Furlough for management
staff from 1 to 4 days depending on salary range. Furloughs expected for represented
staff but the number of days has not been finalized. Governor is proposing 26
furlough days.
Pennsylvania Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but
DDS exempt.
Puerto Rico No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS likely exempt. Layoffs planned
but DDS likely exempt.
Rhode Island No furlough. No hiring freeze.
South Carolina Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Considering hiring
freeze but DDS likely exempt.
South Dakota No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Tennessee Considering furloughs but DDS likely exempt. Hiring freeze but DDS
exempt.
Texas No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Utah No furlough. Hiring freeze but DDS exempt.
Vermont Considering furloughs, DDS not likely exempt. No hiring freeze.
Virginia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Washington No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
West Virginia No furlough. No hiring freeze.
Wisconsin No furlough. Hiring freeze for DDS.
Wyoming No furlough. No hiring freeze.

Appendix F
Methodology of Furlough Impact

To calculate the amount of benefits that would be delayed from flowing into
the economy on a rolling monthly basis as of February 2009, we used the methodology
shown in the tables below. California was furloughing 2 days per month (Table
F-1), but as of February 17, 2009, California had a tentative agreement with
its union to reduce the furloughs from 2 days to 1 day per month (Table F-2).

For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig
or contact the Office of the Inspector General's Public Affairs Staff Assistant
at (410) 965-4518. Refer to Common Identification Number A-01-09-29137.

Overview of the Office of the Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit
(OA), Office of Investigations (OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector
General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of Technology
and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures,
internal controls, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive
Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.

Office of Audit
OA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration's
(SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives
are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether SSA's
financial statements fairly present SSA's financial position, results of operations,
and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
of SSA's programs and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews
and program evaluations on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general
public.

Office of Investigations
OI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement
in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries,
contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties.
This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating
to the investigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations
with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General
OCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters,
including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also
advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal
implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.
Also, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.

Office of External Relations
OER manages OIG's external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal
advisor on news releases and in providing information to the various news reporting
services. OER develops OIG's media and public information policies, directs
OIG's external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact
for those seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches,
and presentations to internal and external organizations, and responds to Congressional
correspondence.

Office of Technology and Resource Management
OTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security.
OTRM also coordinates OIG's budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities,
and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the focal point for OIG's strategic
planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance measures.
In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and
administrative violations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving
benefit payments from SSA, and provides technological assistance to investigations.